الدفاع والأمن

Read the full article on The American Interest.

No Saudi official has been more applauded and vilified at the same time than Mohamed bin Salman, the Crown Prince and de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia. That is not surprising, given the transformational nature of the project he’s leading at home, which is bound to create both winners—those who wish to open up the kingdom—and losers—those who wish more or less to preserve the status quo.

Read the full article on The American Interest.

As Bahraini government security services cracked down hard on popular protests against the ruling Al-Khalifa family in February 2011, the U.S. Department of Defense quietly considered alternative basing options for the Fifth Fleet, stationed permanently in Bahrain since 1995.

There are numerous, unmistakable signs that the crisis in Syria is moving to a new phase, one that will push Washington further to the sidelines. Not least among these fresh developments is the rapidly evolving situation in Syria’s northeast, where Washington’s Kurdish allies are slowly but surely reconciling with the Assad regime. 

Following the Syrian government’s full reconquest of the country’s south, there are real signs that Russia intends to reduce its presence and responsibilities in Syria. Moscow has not stated this openly, in contrast to its three previous drawdown announcements. Each of these announcements came after a major victory, such as the recapture of Aleppo from rebels or eastern Syria from ISIS, and did not result in any tangible reductions. Despite an absence of fanfare, however, recent developments and statements indicate that a partial drawdown is already underway.

Read the full article at War on the Rocks.

Several countries have engaged in a flurry of diplomatic moves in recent days to prevent combat between Israeli and Iranian forces in southern Syria from escalating into full-scale war. MEI senior fellows Robert Ford and Charles Lister join host Paul Salem to discuss these moves and the state of the Syrian conflict.

The way forward in Afghanistan seems as unclear as it has ever been. An outright military victory against the Taliban and other insurgent groups appears to be unachievable. The prospect of insurgents overrunning the country soon appears similarly unlikely. At the same time, a negotiated peace seems presently improbable. At least on terms outlined by the Kabul government and international community, the Taliban shows little interest in reconciliation.

While armed nonstate actors and proxy militias have been grabbing most headlines in recent years, the risk of interstate war in the Middle East is rising at an alarming rate. This includes the risk of war between Israel and Iran, Saudi Arabia and Iran, and possibly the United States and Iran, or the United States and Russia. Tensions between Israel and Iran have boiled over several times in recent weeks in Syria, risking a serious escalation between the two countries.

Key points

Read the full article on Foreign Policy.

In Sunday’s elections in Lebanon, Hezbollah and its allies gained more than half the seats in Parliament. After a result like that, an old canard in Washington is likely to resurface with full force: the idea that U.S. policy in Lebanon is a disaster. Don’t buy it. In fact, of all the investments the United States has made in the Middle East over the past decade, Lebanon has generated the greatest returns.

What impact will the Trump administration’s new arms sales policy, named “Buy American,” have on the Middle East, historically one of the major destinations for U.S.-made weapons? Michael O’Hanlon, senior fellow and director of research for the Foreign Policy program at Brookings, and Bilal Saab, director of MEI’s Defense and Security program, join host Paul Salem to discuss.

This article was first published on Defense One.

The White House last week released a new plan—called “Buy American”—to shore up U.S. arms sales to global friends and allies. It’s borne out of President Donald Trump’s desire, which he articulated during his presidential campaign, to sell more American weapons as a means to boost the U.S. economy and create more jobs.

Critics of the Iran nuclear deal have consistently argued that one of its major flaws is that it didn’t address Tehran’s ballistic missile program. Imposing limits on those weapons of terror, opponents of the deal say, is a primary U.S. objective and should have been part of our negotiating strategy with the Iranians from the beginning.